It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ethical Planetarian Platform; Revision 001

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


You must know perfectly well that if i was able to present my thoughts in the visual presentation you prefer, i would do just that. But that I am ignorant to the many buttons and tabs available to me that would make your reading experience more convenient, does not, in any way, detract from the arguments contained within my admittedly noobish posts, which contain countless grammatical and spelling errors, Im sure.

That you did not previously object to my obvious lack of skill with browsers and syntax, but instead engaged me in a lengthy debate without mention of my obvious deficientcies, and now choose to highlight them as grounds for your withdraw from the exchange in ideas, leads me to question your grounds for validation, and when you choose to apply them. That is, I wonder why you didnt call me on all of this in my second post, as opposed to now, when you simply dont seem to have any response to my poorly written query?

Your excuse to disregard, while perhaps valid, was not present before, so I wonder, is it indeed how Im saying things that you find unacceptable, or perhaps instead, what Im saying?

On your critisism, I reread my responses. While admittedly they lacked the clear defenition of Q and A, the words, and their meaning, strangely did not change from your post to mine. The grace and eloquence of your responses were indeed more clear to me than mine might be to you, but, for some reason, the words themselves did not change.

Since youre smart enough to know what im driving at, ill state it plainly. Dismissing me, after such investment on both our sides, based on a mere technicality, is a dirty misdirection that hardly deserves my thoughtful reproach. Your misdirection is equivalent to someone on a cell phone faking loss of signal when engaged in an uncomfortable conversation with someone who expects respect, and to be heard.

Such misdirection is not that of a leader, but that of a con artist. Your inability or unwillingness to engage in a rational way marks the end of our conversation. Have fun in your blissful world, but know that the wise always see that which others strive for desperately as an admission of their own perceived shortcomings.

Enjoy.
edit on 31-3-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


You must know perfectly well that if i was able to present my thoughts in the visual presentation you prefer, i would do just that. But that I am ignorant to the many buttons and tabs available to me that would make your reading experience more convenient, does not, in any way, detract from the arguments contained within my admittedly noobish posts, which contain countless grammatical and spelling errors, Im sure.


I have no issues with grammar, etc. I just have a hard time teasing out what you said from what I said. Use [ quote ] (no spaces) to open a quote, and [ / quote ] (no spaces) to close it. Make sure each quote is thus enclosed (you can nest these - so that my quote will be inside you quote inside my quote, etc.).


That you did not previously object to my obvious lack of skill with browsers and syntax, but instead engaged me in a lengthy debate without mention of my obvious deficientcies, and now choose to highlight them as grounds for your withdraw from the exchange in ideas, leads me to question your grounds for validation, and when you choose to apply them. That is, I wonder why you didnt call me on all of this in my second post, as opposed to now, when you simply dont seem to have any response to my poorly written query?


Question all you want... I was looking forward to our exchange, but had great difficulty trying to follow what you were addressing and so on. I am not at all "withdrawing." I just want something comprehensible to respond to. (As to why I didn't mention the issues before, I am willing to work with an occasional issue. But when the issues become consistent, I speak up.) It's not that I don't have anything to reply with. It's that I am having trouble following what I should be replying to.


Your excuse to disregard, while perhaps valid, was not present before, so I wonder, is it indeed how Im saying things that you find unacceptable, or perhaps instead, what Im saying?


Not at all... I just struggled to tease out what you said from what I said. It was greatly confusing.


On your critisism, I reread my responses. While admittedly they lacked the clear defenition of Q and A, the words, and their meaning, strangely did not change from your post to mine. The grace and eloquence of your responses were indeed more clear to me than mine might be to you, but, for some reason, the words themselves did not change.


Not sure what you're saying here...


Since youre smart enough to know what im driving at, ill state it plainly. Dismissing me, after such investment on both our sides, based on a mere technicality, is a dirty misdirection that hardly deserves my thoughtful reproach. Your misdirection is equivalent to someone on a cell phone faking loss of signal when engaged in an uncomfortable conversation with someone who expects respect, and to be heard.


I'm not dismissing you at all. Just asking for something more comprehensible to respond to. Not trying to misdirect, either. If you want, since I have time, I will go ahead and try to work through that post of yours. All I ask in the future is that if your post does not tag correctly, go in and edit until it does. Anyway, give me time - it's quite an effort to correct tags and make sure all nests are correctly set up.


Such misdirection is not that of a leader, but that of a con artist. Your inability or unwillingness to engage in a rational way marks the end of our conversation. Have fun in your blissful world, but know that the wise always see that which others strive for desperately as an admission of their own perceived shortcomings.


Geez, dude. I am not misdirecting. I'm asking for comprehensibility.


Enjoy.


Well, I won't enjoy trying to comb the tags for you. But I will enjoy talking about any misperceptions. Hang on then.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


*sigh*


Not "goodwill" and surely not "altruism." Bliss. There are many, many whose bliss it would be to tackle such a project as you describe. Even now on the web we see people casting their lines into its waters and finding total strangers offering to help - with nothing but sense of accomplishment and reputation as "payment." (Houses will be built by robots and any whose bliss it is to build houses - designed by those who love to design houses (no shortage there).) With materials and tools readily available, one is sure to find someone in the sea of billions who would offer, and likely a whole slough of them.


So you propose that money be replaced by 'bliss'. I'm not sure how to rationally respond to that.


I covered this... Motivation will come from bliss, not profit (money/power/energy).



But of course, every man will have an army of robots at his bidding to carry out mundane tasks like building his house or walking the dog. So in your world of abundance, I should be able to have as many robots as is necessary in order to build my flotilla of cyborg love, so I suppose theres no conflict there.



You see, you say scarcity will not exist,...


Gotcha. So under your system I could order a million billion robots to do my bidding. I can order more robots that the Earth has metal. Im sure the robots would build robot space ships to mine asteroids for more robot metals, all at my passing whim, since scarcity does not exist and I can have absolutely anything I want. Sounds great.


Well... You can ORDER them. But I think you would not get them. You are using absurdities as if they are reasonable. You would have no need or use for all these robots - well, unless they're nanorobots... But that's not what you're saying.



Scarcity of materials does not exist. Sorry I left that implied rather than stated outright.


So there is an infinite amount of salmon in the sea? An infinite amount of gold? How about plutonium? All I have to do is click a box on a computer, like adding a friend on facebook, and a crate full of plutonium will arrive at my door, delivered by (you guessed it) a robot in a funny hat? How much plutonium can I order under your system, exactly? If I cannot recieve my order as placed, who (or what) sets the limit? Robot (who is programmed by man) or man?


Who said anything about "infinite?" Salmon - like lobster - will be available to all at some point in their lives (though, likely far more frequently than lobster).

Effectively, yes, we do have infinite gold. Back in the 1970's we transmuted lead into gold. The problem was not so much how to do it, but that, because the energy required to do it cost so much, an ounce would have cost something on the order of a million dollars. With that cost of energy removed, we can transmute most anything into gold.

I think those whose bliss it is to publicly keep track of plutonium would object...not to mention many others. But again, you're pulling absurdities out in an effort to disparage the ideas.


You see, if you stick to your premise that all will be provided as all is limitless, there should be no reason I cannot recieve my requested, highly radioactive material. If you impose limits (which would currently be imposed by the state ) youre infinite abundance platform instantly falls, as it would be clear that not all of mans infinite desires could be forfilled due to some limitation. (and this scarcity) If you are reasonable and acquiesce that some limiting factor exists that would disallow me from procuring my desired delivery of plutonium, you must explain to me by what mechanism that decision to disallow my order is made upon.


I did not, nor have I ever said "limitless," "infinite" (except effectively, as in gold), or any other descriptor meaning open-ended. I said "abundant." "Abundant" means enough to provide fully the basic needs for all, and have plenty left over - to the tune of basic needs ten times over.

The idea is not that we can accommodate absurdities, but that poverty will be vanquished - as well as taxes.


If you stick to your guns and irrationally pronouce that my delivery will indeed be at my door tomorrow, I'm certainly done talking to you, just as I wouldnt engage in a lenghty debate with a raving lunatic. If you accept that limitations will exist, now and forever, on certain items or goods, you simply *must* be clear by which standard, and by whos decision, I will be bound by.


And reasonable request will be delivered in a reasonable length of time. Any absurd request is likely to go unfulfilled. You may have to wait for lobster - depends on the availability. But you will not have to wait for food, clothing, housing. That will be yours for the asking.



No contradiction. Given materials will be available (no scarcity there), it is up to you to make them come together as you envision. Enticing others to assist is likely part of that. Each of us must make effort to bring our dreams to fruition if we are to have them.


How the hell would any human have the charm, charisma, or time in order to be able to personally convince thousands of people, who have their own lives and desires, to drop everything to come work on a project that they themselves will never personally gain from?


Heh. Linus Torvalds had something - he got Linux going. All it takes is an idea that others want to support and join in on. If you have an idea (blowing up Toronto, say) that no one will support. Oh well. Point is, good ideas will garner support, while bad ones won't. No one will "drop everything" per se. They may forgo what they're working on because they're inspired to help another's project. Since they don't HAVE to work, they will work on things that inspire them, that give them bliss to work on.


Oh right...bliss...


Yup.



No... The hands and minds are in the billions. Like other raw "materials" you must put forth effort to refine and build with them. Frankly, there are people who would help you - and they may or may not want something in return, but it won't be money. It may be the chance to come along with you when you sail off into the sea of space. It may just be prominent mention when any reporting of your project is done. It may be already included, as in a sense of accomplishment.


I can offer a stranger nothing besides what he tangibly values, and that which I have a surplus of. But again, abundance...and laboring robots...two things that do not currently exist outside of your imagination.


Your surplus may be ideas... I suspect that's MY surplus. [smile]

As for abundance, it surely does exist, but we are held back from it by the system of money. Money is a representation of energy expended. With an effectively infinite source of energy, the need for money (to account for it's being expended) will become moot. We have the plenum energy, and many have shown ways (and there are several) to extract it, and if we were allowed to have that technology for peaceful application, we would no longer be barred (virtually all of us) from the lifestyle of the power elite.

So yes. We do have an abundant planet, and if We managed the planet wisely - organically and lovingly - We could ensure no One of Us, nor even if Our population doubled or trebled, would ever HAVE to work, and had all opportunity, in the Arts and Sciences, in the Flesh and in the Heart, to follow our bliss - within the three Laws (and we all know when one of those three Laws have been broken - we rationalize our Ethics when money(power/energy) is involved).

Yeah, baby, we have a marvelously abundant universe. We just need a paradigm of living in it.

Have you ever had both the experience of having no money and seeing all the things to want out there and wanting many of them such that it aches - and having lots of money to spend and looking at all the things to want out there and finding nothing that you really want enough to spend money on them? I have.

In abundance, most of Us will find that We are content - comfortable - with very few things, and the richness of the relationships We hold with other Beings, as We choose to encounter Them in Our passage through this illusion of time - opting Each to spend this time with Ones the Heart connects to.

All this social friction will dissipate and Human society will go "superconductor."

And as for robots... What if we took all the money we're spending on war and instead, put it into peaceful, open-source efforts to build robots to do what We want to do on this planet? I offer ideas here. If the goal is to get rid of money, what does it matter where the money comes from?

And frankly, taking it from an openly admitted war machine seems like the most rational place to start.

If the true goal is peace, then let's go for it.



If you doubt people would do such things as program or build just for the bliss of it and reputation, consider the phenomenon of Linux. It has grown, improved, and widened by people whose bliss it is to create such open-source perfection. No one made a dime off their contribution (though there have been efforts towards that end, there are in the peripheral software and not the system itself). They DID get sense of accomplishment, as well as reputation.


People who wish to offer their accumulated capital, in any form, are free to do so, with or without money. Without looking into the subject at all, though, I would think that the programmers of that system are not living the life of a pauper, and due to their great skill and knowlege (which is infinitely scarce) are now holding down jobs that pay them (in money, not bliss, which they may or may not have) extremely well.


You make it sound as if every one of us has a whole lot of money to throw around. Golly gee. I'm free to throw my money in any direction I want. While technically true, the fact is that virtually all Humans on this planet are not so disencumbered. I will speak statistically here:

We all worry about paying the bills and holding what we have together, dependent on money(/power/energy), and many are losing their grip as we type. The System is doing what it was designed to do - and that is fail. I'm trying to offer a solution that does not entail a gruesome end to things - globally and into the universe.



Human labor will still exist - as the bliss of an individual drives them. Robots are great for all function in which no one takes bliss. That is why the focus will shift from preparing for a career to following One's bliss, with attention to betterment. People in their bliss are NEVER indifferent.


I suppose I must not be blissful then, as I am totally indifferent to 99.9999% of humans on Earth. (as I have never met them and thus are unable to judge if they deserve my compassion or not) And yet I have moments of bliss and am always mindful of betterment. My bliss and betterment simply does not rest on the fortune, or misfortune, of strangers.


Interesting comment. Ok, I apologize for my impatience. I'm intrigued.

I might wonder if you can see the drive to peaceful and loving outcome in all things as a trait to value. Humans have this trait, though it is mostly infolded in the mesh of a money(/power/energy) System, and though many of them are not extremely bright, they are not extremely lacking. Most, well, statistically ALL Humans want to keep Love going where They find it, and as long as They must rely on money(/p/e) as Their social energy flow, the love of money will produce it's evil.

Therefore, if One values a trait as highly as I do that of a drive to peaceful and loving outcomes, and One can see a way to free Humanity, One has the obligation to step forth and offer it,

That is why *I* care about Humanity as a whole. If you do not value that trait, then not caring - on the planetary and species levels - might be understood. But then what would become incomprehensible to me would be the lack of empathy towards peace and love.



Agreed. But in abundance, those whose bliss it is to assist in renovation will offer their skills on the web, and that guy whose house needs renovation can search for them and connect. Probably won't be you, though, I'm guessing.


If you meant the last sentence as some sort of slight, youve failed, as I take my unwillingness to submit to the selfish and unearned desires of others as a strength. So thanks!


LOLOL! You'll do just fine in abundance!



There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.


Hey youre the one proposing a universal salve to the human condition. You should have all the answers. If you are sane and admit you do not, like every other human, you should quit proposing universal solutions such as the abolition of money.


Wait, wait, wait. If I'm sane I will admit I do not have all the answers? No, no, no. If I'm sane, I will admit I do not know whether I have all the answers or not. And I'll cop to that in a heartbeat. Nay! Nanosecond! Hrrm.

Why should I quit, pray tell? *I* see what I have as a solution to a very sticky wicket. If *You* don't want to have that be a solution, cool, but raise questions and I will field them - best, of course, when visual presentation is comprehensible [wink] - I am hoping to have the answers.

So far, I have felt confident that I do have the answers to the questions I have been asked. So I am giving the probability of me having "the answer" (an answer) to the next one at at least 85%. Heh. I'm much more confident, but only bank on solid expectation.


You say distribution is bad because of money. Im sorry, but before making bold claims about economics, I would request that you read a few books on the subject. Saying resources are inefficiently allocated due to their mode of transaction is exactly like saying that marriges are unsucessful because of sex, and therefore we should ban sex.


Whoa. Had to stop you right there. That analogy is way off. Here's why: Money directly drives distribution; sex does not (in the vast majority of cases) drive marriage - though it is an important factor, the goals of the two intertwined, the children added and intertwined, these are the true drivers. The only place money does not drive distribution is in areas where people are subsistence farming and no money really flows at all.

It turns out that as you examine things macroscopically, in terms of the difference between scarcity and abundance on this planet, and at this stage of development of robotics and the Interweb, economics simplifies. Free energy = no need for money. And the love of money dissipates, and the Love that Humans hold will flow.


Pricing is actually the *only* method we currently know of that can allocate resources effeciently, for reasons I wont explain here, and simply state this as fact. The only alternative to aggragate demands (represented by money) is some group (or computers) *opinion*, which is always subject to massive failure. Agree with better world concept, disagree with throwing baby with bathwater.


"Pricing is the *only* method we currently know of that can allocate resources efficiently..." Ok. But other models of economic structure have worked at varying levels even in this unchanging streak of scarcity paradigm. The problem is a planetary, species specific application of a scarcity of energy.

What if that problem was solved?

I say Humanity will prove noble. The imagination and the Heart to aspire nobly will win out.

You?



This is all true in a scarcity paradigm. And I can prove that it is bad distribution that is the issue. Every month supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food. Every month, some people starve. They starve not because there is no food, but that the food that is produced is offered for sale until it spoils and must be thrown out. Distribution by profit, not need. In abundance - which includes free transportation - orders can be placed through the web, and where there is excess it can be moved to where there is demand. (Plenty of blissful problem-solvers out there who would coordinate this freely.)


I will ignore the many basic fallacies in your argument and just say this - man has no tool to decide where goods are needed most without the price discovery mechanism. Without it, we sink into the realm of centralized control and thus dictatorship.


Um. We're using it right now. Freely (in a tenuous sense...). The Interweb.




No... Money itself is not to blame. The LOVE OF money is. It is not highly probable (vanishingly small probability) that we can remove the LOVE OF money and keep money. By removing money, the LOVE OF money is excised. As long as money and the love of it exist, we WILL see elite and poverty. Without it, we will see equity and freedom for all.


So you contradict your basic premise and admit that money, in and of itself, is not evil. It is just the importance we place on it.


Eh? Not quite there... If the motivation for everyone's choices in life were not dependent on money(/p/e), the noble path would be taken in a sort of "superconductivity" of social interaction which is precisely the conjoining of things. Yeah, it's sort of a have your cake and eat it to sort of thing, really. So I'm rather mystified by any motive against it except...where the love of, yeah, you know, over...uh...powers.

Why don't We do it? I ask.


So an enlightened man, by your admission, could use money to facilitate his trades without becoming a lover of money. Thus it is ignorance, and not dollar bills, that is the root of evil. On this we agree. But this has nothing to do with money itself.


Oh, certainly. I'm just saying it would become unnecessary if we used the Interweb to have a central place to publcly and we set it up publicly, open source. Have a contest to see who had the best code to do that and choose the best one. Ooo. There's an idea.



And without money, and with the respect for Consciousness, the costs will be non-existent.


Wait. You just admitted that it is the love of money, and not money itself, that is the source of evil. So if one has 'a respect for conciousness' and also some paper in his wallet, is he incapable of moral behaviour?


No.... If I recall correctly, YOU suggested there might be other aspects of social energy than money, and I wholly agree. My point has never been that other energies do not exist, but that money(/p/e) is a thorn in the side of Humanity and that by excising it Our noble selves will manifest. And right NOW we can do it.


As for costs...well some of your ideas are coming at the cost of my patience, which right now is becoming increasingly scarce. Yet no money has changed hands.


Ooo. And how many have followed this exchange of ours and considered each side? I'm hoping it is many. The more considering my ideas, the more likely Humanity will survive intact. Just to the tipping point, that's all I have to get to. Just to the tipping point.

Anyway, my point is that ideas mingle and, in a chaotic emergence, match problems to solutions on a scale never before possible. That is why the Interweb and free energy and robotics and ideas capable of being spread worldwide if needed is so important.



Look up Polyface Farms... Here, I did it for you: www.polyfacefarms.com... This is the vision I have of comfort for the Conscious beings (small "b" to differentiate from Beings, who are ones who ask for rights...) while maintaining harmony and high yield. If Humans did this, rather than the evil out of love for money, our planet would blossom and provide as needed. We could distribute based on need. "Pricing" would be moot.


To each according to their needs....hmmm...where have I heard that before.


Not exactly... Each may fulfill their needs, and from each only that which brings them bliss (you missed the second part entirely). Communism is a scarcity paradigm - one pie cut equally, with human sweat to produce that pie. Abundance is more many, many pies, from which each may take as little or as much as one wants, with robots and Human bliss to produce the wide array of pies.


Please, at least be honest with your potential constituents and rename your party the 'Blissful Abundant Communist Robot Party'. At least then the more naive might consider the implications of signing onto a program that has a higher killcount than Christianity.


No, I won't call it by any name which uses scarcity paradigm terminology, because that is not what it is. And though there have been Systems that have used "communism" as their basis, no System on earth has been truly communistic - all have included power elite and a disproportionate amount of pie given to the inner party. 1984 is a prime example of the fascist overlay onto ideals of managing scarcity. In abundance, no one is above any others, and management is chaotic, emerging through the Interweb.

(You do know the difference between "random" and "chaotic" don't you? Chaos has a hidden, or infolded, structure which emerges over time. Ramdomness is - well... - random.)


Of course not. That isn't YOUR bliss. But there ARE people who would find that something they would LOVE to do, given all the tools, materials and time.


If this is a universal in human behaviour we would expect it to be expressed in some widespread fashion in the present. It is not.

Where people have the tools, materials and time we absolutely see problems solved, art and science emerging. If there were no such expression, there would be no overarching problems solved, there would be no art or science. With tools, materials and time available to any who want to avail themselves, we will see all the more of problems solved, art and science.



You, as sociopath, may hunker in your domicile and ignore the world at large - in abundance you would be no drain. Have a nice life then, I guess it would be. But Humans, by and large are social, caring, Beings - many of whom would do something for the bliss of it, even for strangers.


If your definition of sociopathic is one who does not base his self value on the bias and falsehood of strangers bigorty, then I guess Im a sociopath. The fact that you find my individualism to be problematic and anti social tells me all I need to know about you and your ideas. You seem to feel I owe my fellow man simply because they exist. I know I owe no man anything besides that which they have earned from me, be it through mutual benefit or worthy virtue. Money may or may not represent this transaction.


Sociopath (from dictionary.reference.com... ):


so·ci·o·path    [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
–noun Psychiatry .
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.


Given that you say you have no connection to society as a whole - only individuals you encounter - I can see "sociopath" being used to describe who you say you are. You lack social conscience, it would seem.

Do you owe anyone anything? Not at all. And if you have nothing you want to give, that's ok too. Fortunately, there are many who DO care and DO have something to give. But you can skate all you want. That is the beauty of abundance, and why you'll do just fine.


If it is selfish to demand resiprocity in every one of my binding relationships, I suppose Ive earned your intended slur.


No intended slur. An observation based on your responses here. Nothing wrong with demanding reciprocity in your relationships. But it IS sociopathic to have no connection, no conscience, to society as a whole.



Ah ah ah. That breaks one or more of the three Laws... You will be dealt with, methinks.


And who will punish me?


The people who find out and care.



I beg to differ. First, I am not saying that everyone can eat lobster every meal. But I am saying that all will have the opportunity to do so occasionally. Yes, there will be scarcities of some specific items. First come first served on that. What I am saying is that there is easily enough food on this planet to feed all of us three times over (well, there would be if we didn't pay farmers to NOT produce...), and we can produce just as much organically and with higher nutrition than what's coming out of our fields and farms now. No one will go hungry. No one will have no place to live. No one will die of exposure because of inadequate clothing. And no one will be unloved (even in this scarcity paradigm, many care enough about the ones no body cares about to offer their time, money and ideas freely to help solve the problem of uncared for individuals). With the resources available in terms of food, clothing, shelter and transportation, the unloved will be given love.


Im sorry but this farce is reaching monty python level absurdity. Your entire premise is that scarcity of any kind will not exist. Then, not a few keystrokes later, you openly admit that *many* items, such as lobster, will be subject to scarcity. So my main citique stands (that scarcity will always exist in some form) and my main question remains unanswered, so ill ask again - in the absence of money, by what mechanism will we decide who gets to eat lobster, and when?


Not exactly. My premise is that this is an abundant planet capable of supporting many times the present population, and no one has to work to have plenty to eat, a house they like, and appropriate clothing. A far cry better than the scarcity most of us live in now, slaving at jobs we would rather be doing something else than, many going hungry, shivering in the cold. Hunger and exposure will vanish. Opportunities will open up. If this is so much better, why oppose it because you won't have lobster every meal?


As for love, well, true love is the ultimate scarce resource. Has it occured to you that the unloved among actuallly *deserve no love*? In fact, one might say they deserve hatred and isolation?


The starving child left to his own devices in a world of plenty - but you have to have money to get some of it - deserves his fate...? Am I getting the right picture? The family whose farm was devastated by blight and now go hungry along with those who relied on their food - they deserve this? Or are you talking about sociopaths...?

There are those who care about even the sociopaths.


Does the pedophile priest deserve your most precious resource? (love/bliss?)


Yes, in the form of rehabilitation efforts, and in the form of locking him away to keep him from breaking the three Laws if need be. (There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile - as long as no action is taken against a child.


Does Hitler, after exterminating millions of people who may have actually earned their loving devotion, deserve love?


Yes, in the form of rehabilitation efforts, and in the form of locking him away to keep him from breaking the three Laws if need be.


How about the rapist? Does your heart truly go out to him? Or his innocent victim?


Both. In the form of rehabilitation efforts, and in the form of locking the rapist away to keep him from breaking the three Laws if need be.


What about the Fed chairman, who embodies all that you see that is wrong with the world currently? Does he deserve your undying faithfulness and appriciation?


Faithfulness?!? Appreciation!?! Neither (nor have I ever mentioned either of those terms). Forgiveness? Yes, as we remove from him his present power over others.

And on top of this, you are reaching for the people who make up at most the very tips of the fringe of Human society. I am talking about all the others who do not break any of the three Laws. All the billions who just struggle day to day, and break no Laws.


If you love these people, and do not hate them, I would submit you do not know what love really is. Love is an involuntary reaction to virtuous behaviour. None of the above examples are capable of real love, and cannot be truly loved beyond some sick devotion to all that is wrong with the world. Again, not money.


If you hate, you do not understand agape. It's kinda like loving the sinner and not the sin. And I propose that it is your sociopathic nature that renders you incapable of this love, this agape.

Who will love the loved, in your utopia? The department of love? Will it be manned by robots?

Don't be dense, dear. Humans have a trait, to care about society and the individuals therein. Most would solve problems if they had the tools, materials and time. That you are myopic to this trait may be your problem in grasping the abundance paradigm.



No fallacy. In a scarcity paradigm, it is the labor of Humans - their energy - that is represented in a company's profit. Money merely represents an accounting of energy expended.


Again, before making claims about a subject, you should actually educate yourself in it. Money does not represent the energy expended. Money represents the value others place on the energy/time/resources expended. Money has no intrinisic value - it just represents trade. Trade = good.


Regardless of the value placed in any given instant, it still boils down to accounting for energy expended. Trade is the field in which we use this accounting system, but money itself does not represent this field. It's an accounting within this field.



Yes. In a scarcity paradigm, where money is the goal, this is often the case. There is no motive but bliss from goodwill without money.


If this is TRUE, please explain to me the obviously blissless societies that tried to abandom the price mechanism. Shouldnt previous social experiement in communism have ended in bliss and not mass murder and collapse?


No. Because communism is a scarcity paradigm. And has never been tried on any but very small scales (like I said, there has always been a power elite in the larger scale, and true communism has no power elite). ALL previous social experiments have been scarcity paradigm experiments.




Agreed. In the moneyed scarcity paradigm, this has developed. In abundance, though no One will act without self interest, that self interest will be driven by bliss. And that means the motive will always be clear. And, as I have said, abundance is selfishness to the max - while also producing behavior that, under scarcity, might LOOK like altruism.


And when Jesus arrives all the faithful will be beamed away to the planet bliss. Have your bliss account information handy though.


That is non-sequitur.


Seriously. You cannot define self interest universally as you can only define self interest in your own self interested terms. Others self interest may be radically different from your own.


I am defining nothing. Self interest is about pursuing life, liberty, property and happiness. There's a lot of room in there. I *am* stating that making things better is many peoples' bliss, and therefore solutions will emerge from the chaotic social milieu.



Of course you wouldn't. But I know many who would willingly do so - even for a stranger - if they could and it would save that stranger. It would be bliss to them to know they helped someone.


If Im in danger of death, the last thing I would rely upon is someone elses bliss. In that case I would offer him my fleet of pleasure yaughts...but he would not be incentivised, as his own army of robot builders could make him one by next week anyways.


If you are in danger the ONLY thing you will rely on is another's bliss - it is One's bliss that leads One into paramedic school. It is bliss (in knowing One is doing something) that motivates One to save another at that One's peril. If no one takes bliss in helping, in solving problems, no one would help you if they saw you in peril.



Indeed, we owe each other nothing - but if there were none who cared, none whose bliss it is to solve problems, we would see NO altruism. We would see NO organizations to assist others. We would see NO self-sacrifice ever. And though money has been used - in fact is a requirement, in one form or another, be it barter, shells, beads, gold, whatever, in a scarcity paradigm - to account for energy expended, in abundance need and bliss will be matched on the Interweb with no money required


So being that we do see acts of seeming altruism in a monetary world, we can conclude that the altruistic will act in that way regardless of the presence of money.


Yes.


Replacing shells, salt, gold, rice or bank notes with 'bliss' solves nothing, and indeed just adds to the confusion of our existence. Money is a tool, If it falls into disuse through neccessity, then so be it. But as for now, in the real world we inhabit, money as a tool can be regarded as the facilitator of almost every great achivement (like the internet, or robots) you can imagine.


Again, it is not a replacement of MONEY with bliss. It is replacing the MOTIVATION to act because of profit with the MOTIVATION to act because of bliss. And money is present as a "tool" because we have had a scarcity of energy and needed to account for its expenditure. With abundant energy come no need to account for its expenditure.

[quot]Until currency becomes obsolete, it will remain the cooperative hub and wellspring of civilization. To the extent that it is used as a weapon to dominate, or a tool to uplift, is dependant on our perception and responsible use of it. Just as a gun can be used to protect the virtuous and allow for positive growth in a secure enviroment, so to can money be used as a tool to be used positively by virtuous humans to facilitate trade to their mutual benefit.

Yes, until money becomes obsolete. My point is that free energy WILL MAKE MONEY OBSOLETE.


I think your philosophy has identified the symptoms, but not the cause, of our current, agreeably catastrophic situation. I propose that violence, and especially centrally controlled, monopolized violence, is the root of our evils, and these evildoers tend to use money. It does not have to be so, as money can be a great servant to man, as apposed to the tool of enslavement that is today.


The symptoms? Such as motivation for profit and not best interests of Humanity? A centrally controlled system is supported by control of money(/p/e). It allows violence and is control over others. With free energy, there will be no power over others, just autonomous control over self.

And whether you believe money can be a great servant to man, as apposed to the tool of enslavement that is today, or not, it will ALWAYS lead to slavery, power elite, and messes like we see today. Because as long as there is money, there is the love of it. As long as there is money, people will sacrifice ethics to gain it.


In short, it is not money that is evil, or even the love of money...but instead the love of violence that blights us as a species at every turn.


The "love of violence" is a love of money. Haliburton and many other "war suppliers" of the past make that clear. They have always supplied both sides of conflict (covertly in most cases, of course) and whip up support for war (via false flags such as 9/11) - why? So that THEY CAN MAKE MONEY and control people.

It all boils down to the love of money.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
A world without money:

There has always been royalty, as there has poverty, its status, acceptance, and fills a shallow man with ego and confidence. With that said, it would certainly if nothing else lay the grounds for a level playing field, and set the stage for a taste of integrity. However in all fairness and greed aside, as the saying goes who dies with the most toys, I do feel those that work hard to provide for their family’s, have the drive and focus and heart to live their lives in a way there will be at piece in their final hour, should also enjoy the fruit. While others who beg bower and steal, will once again find themselves parted. But I like where you going with this.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 




If you have an idea (blowing up Toronto, say) that no one will support. Oh well. Point is, good ideas will garner support, while bad ones won't.

Toronto 18
Newslink 1
Newslink 2




Four years ago, a group of young Muslim men conspired to send Ottawa a deadly message. Enraged by Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan, and fuelled by violent jihadi videos, they plotted to storm Parliament Hill and detonate truck bombs in downtown Toronto. The goal was to cause catastrophic damage, cripple the economy and unleash mass carnage.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


What's your point, boncho? I had no idea anyone would want to blow up Toronto - it was supposed to be a joke. And in abundance, these boys would be doing other things.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by boncho
 


What's your point, boncho? I had no idea anyone would want to blow up Toronto - it was supposed to be a joke. And in abundance, these boys would be doing other things.


Why not?

Are religions going to be abolished too? How do we settle land disputes with the Israelis and the Arabs?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by boncho
 


What's your point, boncho? I had no idea anyone would want to blow up Toronto - it was supposed to be a joke. And in abundance, these boys would be doing other things.


Why not?

Are religions going to be abolished too? How do we settle land disputes with the Israelis and the Arabs?


No, religions are not abolished - if you read what I wrote in the platform at the start of the thread, you would know that I very specifically state otherwise. What will change is the motivation some have to teach these violent behaviors and outlooks. It is NOT because of a simple religious belief that these behaviors are taught by "extremists." It is a play for power. With no one having power over others, they might TRY to teach this - but there would be little point to it.

And anyway... I have suspicions about this whole story. It may have been just some crazed kids, high on propaganda and twisted views, but I sense a hand in this such that more "terrorist horror stories" can be told in an effort to get Humans to give up their freedoms.

Really, it's VERY fishy.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



And anyway... I have suspicions about this whole story. It may have been just some crazed kids, high on propaganda and twisted views, but I sense a hand in this such that more "terrorist horror stories" can be told in an effort to get Humans to give up their freedoms.

Really, it's VERY fishy.


You are one hundred percent right about this. In fact, the second in command of this group was a Police agent. It seems like an operation that was put into place to bring about the security certificate in Canada.

But that is besides the point, why? Because of the very fact that the people involved were manipulated into believing something destructive was a good thing. How will all manipulation cease to exist? How will all idiots who are susceptible to manipulation cease to exist?

How do you account for racists, anarchists and general poo disturbers in your brave new world?

Do you assume to say that all racism will be abolished because people found bliss?

We are talking about irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings. Not something that is brought on because there wasn't an abundance of resources.

For you idea to work you would need massive world-wide programming of all people. How do you expect to achieve this? Your basic stance is that individuals have no free will, and I say this because of your claim that money is the cause of all problems, and the 'power elite' are all manipulating the people for profit. That is not a rational viewpoint.

For your theory to be sound, you should be able to find a localized tribe somewhere in history (that had an abundance of resources) with none of the problems you have described existing in modern society.

Because you already stated in another thread, that certain groups don't have to take your new 'technologies'. Meaning that if people choose to live without the influence of your new system they should have the right to. However, if you new system does not apply to all, how do you expect for it to have a global impact?


edit on 5-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



And anyway... I have suspicions about this whole story. It may have been just some crazed kids, high on propaganda and twisted views, but I sense a hand in this such that more "terrorist horror stories" can be told in an effort to get Humans to give up their freedoms.

Really, it's VERY fishy.


You are one hundred percent right about this. In fact, the second in command of this group was a Police agent. It seems like an operation that was put into place to bring about the security certificate in Canada.

But that is besides the point, why? Because of the very fact that the people involved were manipulated into believing something destructive was a good thing. How will all manipulation cease to exist? How will all idiots who are susceptible to manipulation cease to exist?


First, what would the motivation be? Without money, what would these people be thinking as they pumped others with destructive ideas? They don't need money to have excellent food, clothing, shelter and tools - like everyone else. What would motivate them? Right now it is money/power/energy. And so, without that to motivate... I can't come up with anything.


How do you account for racists, anarchists and general poo disturbers in your brave new world?


No "Brave New World." It is NOT a distopia. As for racists... They can be racist all they want - but in abundance, they would seldom encounter those they were racists against - and if they did encounter them, as long as they break none of the three Laws - still not a problem. If they break any of the three Laws - we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now.


Do you assume to say that all racism will be abolished because people found bliss?


No, but I do presume that when there is no competition for basic needs, racism will fade. When people do not feel others are taking from their own piece of a pie - when there are plenty of pies - such archaic behavior will dissipate.


We are talking about irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings. Not something that is brought on because there wasn't an abundance of resources.


No. We are talking about greed and money issues at the heart. When people don't feel threatened on these counts, they don't develop the behaviors. Greed has no meaning in abundance. Money motive will vanish. And people will be occupying themselves in their bliss to the point of not caring what others have or do as long as the Laws are not broken.


For you idea to work you would need massive world-wide programming of all people. How do you expect to achieve this? Your basic stance is that individuals have no free will, and I say this because of your claim that money is the cause of all problems, and the 'power elite' are all manipulating the people for profit. That is not a rational viewpoint.


No I won't need a massive programming. True Human nature will emerge from the prison it is kept in because of money/power/energy. And if you have looked around this site, you will see a great number of indications that TPTB are INDEED manipulating Us for profit (money/power/energy). It is not rational to suggest there is no good evidence.


For your theory to be sound, you should be able to find a localized tribe somewhere in history (that had an abundance of resources) with none of the problems you have described existing in modern society.


No... My theory (really my analysis) can be sound whether there are examples or not. Now, for you to believe my analysis is correct, YOU may require this. But that is irrelevant to whether I am correct in my analysis. Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe. [shrug]


Because you already stated in another thread, that certain groups don't have to take your new 'technologies'. Meaning that if people choose to live without the influence of your new system they should have the right to. However, if you new system does not apply to all, how do you expect for it to have a global impact?


It still applies to everyone. Because it allows for any lifestyle one chooses within the three Laws, anyone may operate as they wish under it, individually and as groups. The only stipulation is that all must be approached with the three Laws in mind. If they want to grow their own food, they may. If they want to order it from the robotic system, they may. It's not so much living "without the influence of [this] new system;" it's that all peaceful ways of coexisting are acceptable.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 




First, what would the motivation be? Without money, what would these people be thinking as they pumped others with destructive ideas? They don't need money to have excellent food, clothing, shelter and tools - like everyone else. What would motivate them? Right now it is money/power/energy. And so, without that to motivate... I can't come up with anything.


You have marginalized human emotion in your analysis. There are many things more than money that play into peoples' personalities. Jealously, rage, grief, pity, indifference, etc. etc. These traits are not all brought on by money. What if someone is dating a girl that another wants to date? What if someone has a 'better', 'smarter' family than others? What about IQ? What about insecurities, that no matter what you tell them they only see their shortcomings? What about the rapists, child molesters, murderers? Sado-Masochistic people?

All these things are because of money? The Human Ego is dissolved how in your scenario?

Take the dating scenario, if a person loses his girlfriend to someone of a different race, this can breed a negative disposition towards that race. Birth of newfound racism, how do you stop that?


As for racists... They can be racist all they want - but in abundance, they would seldom encounter those they were racists against - and if they did encounter them, as long as they break none of the three Laws - still not a problem. If they break any of the three Laws - we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now.


So nothing changes then... Hardly the definition of bliss. Radicals on every side still get to radicalize others, still can be subversive and call for the death of their opposition. How has anyone achieved bliss?

That you say "we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now" means you wish to continue the justice system of the world as religious based in some of the ME, and financially/"morally" based as it is in the West, and Corruption based as it is in many third world countries?



No, but I do presume that when there is no competition for basic needs, racism will fade. When people do not feel others are taking from their own piece of a pie - when there are plenty of pies - such archaic behavior will dissipate.


You presume so much that this is all fiction. At least show some studies where there was no racism in a group that had an abundance of resources. Racism is more complicated than money and goods. And don't forget girls, intelligence or lack thereof, hate towards people lesser than you and/or better than you. Many teenagers live abundant lifestyles, wouldn't you agree?



No. We are talking about greed and money issues at the heart. When people don't feel threatened on these counts, they don't develop the behaviors. Greed has no meaning in abundance. Money motive will vanish. And people will be occupying themselves in their bliss to the point of not caring what others have or do as long as the Laws are not broken.


Not everything boils down to greed. Because you have a skewed perception of the world you feel it is. But life is more complex than you are making it to be.

Who decides the laws? Do we keep Sharia law in Muslim states? Do women still get stoned to death, are they finding bliss that way?

There are so many tribal communities in the world that don't give a lick about money. Why don't you study them and try and support your position with the findings....



No I won't need a massive programming. True Human nature will emerge from the prison it is kept in because of money/power/energy. And if you have looked around this site, you will see a great number of indications that TPTB are INDEED manipulating Us for profit (money/power/energy). It is not rational to suggest there is no good evidence.


Of course people are being manipulating, and what you are calling for is the same thing. For everyone to be programed to find bliss.

What I am saying, is what the government says does not limit people to use their own free will. No matter the manipulation, people are still able to think for themselves if they choose to.



Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.










No... My theory (really my analysis) can be sound whether there are examples or not. Now, for you to believe my analysis is correct, YOU may require this. But that is irrelevant to whether I am correct in my analysis.


Your not correct in your analysis because simple comparisons completely void it.



It still applies to everyone. Because it allows for any lifestyle one chooses within the three Laws, anyone may operate as they wish under it, individually and as groups. The only stipulation is that all must be approached with the three Laws in mind. If they want to grow their own food, they may. If they want to order it from the robotic system, they may. It's not so much living "without the influence of [this] new system;" it's that all peaceful ways of coexisting are acceptable.


What happens if a fundamental religious group believes that your tools are the work of evil forces? And said group chooses to use violence and sabotage against the new world....

How do you enforce your three laws exactly?

Also, how do you plan to take control away of long standing family power groups...Banks, cartels, etc?


edit on 5-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 




First, what would the motivation be? Without money, what would these people be thinking as they pumped others with destructive ideas? They don't need money to have excellent food, clothing, shelter and tools - like everyone else. What would motivate them? Right now it is money/power/energy. And so, without that to motivate... I can't come up with anything.


You have marginalized human emotion in your analysis. There are many things more than money that play into peoples' personalities. Jealously, rage, grief, pity, indifference, etc. etc. These traits are not all brought on by money. What if someone is dating a girl that another wants to date? What if someone has a 'better', 'smarter' family than others? What about IQ? What about insecurities, that no matter what you tell them they only see their shortcomings? What about the rapists, child molesters, murderers? Sado-Masochistic people?


Oh, good grief. You make it sound as if these types of people will magically appear in droves in our society. They're already here and we deal with it. I say none of these things will increase. And a great deal of rage and pity are inspired by money issues. In fact, if you took all crimes and removed all where money/power/energy were involved - you'd be standing with a handful. Relatively speaking.

And how would you define "better" and "smarter" without money as a measure? IQ? I think it's fair to say that IQ will be less of a problem without money than it is now. No one will be struggling to give the care needed. And there will be no motivation to take advantage of them either. Great schools will emerge, wherefrom come trusted experts. Fame will come to those whose works are for the betterment and not as sacrifices to corporate self-appointed deity.

No motivation to sell snake oil, come to think of it. If it doesn't work, all it is is an embarrassment to hawk.

Anyway, onwards...


All these things are because of money? The Human Ego is dissolved how in your scenario?


Not dissolved at all. Sated in many ways, challenged in new, less stressful ways. In ways that are a pleasure and not a pain to spend One's life on.


Take the dating scenario, if a person loses his girlfriend to someone of a different race, this can breed a negative disposition towards that race. Birth of newfound racism, how do you stop that?


Oh, that happens now, for sure. No INcrease, I expect. And in fact, with leveled playing field and people coupling entirely for reasons other than money, this behavior will decrease. And I think if We teach that no Individual represents necessarily the culture or color, and therefore each encounter with anyone is an encounter with that One, We will go far in teaching tolerance.



As for racists... They can be racist all they want - but in abundance, they would seldom encounter those they were racists against - and if they did encounter them, as long as they break none of the three Laws - still not a problem. If they break any of the three Laws - we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now.


So nothing changes then... Hardly the definition of bliss. Radicals on every side still get to radicalize others, still can be subversive and call for the death of their opposition. How has anyone achieved bliss?


ROFLMAO! Oh, oh. "Nothing changes," (s)he says! Nothing except that the woman on her knees washing floors can spend that time eating healthy, wholesome, organic, fresh foods in a place she loves with plenty of time to spend with her kids or visit the grandkids. If she wants to wash a floor - if that's her bliss - she is welcome to do it. Here's the brush and here's the pail of soapy water. Otherwise, a robot will do it.

Nothing changes except that people who need food not only get it, but get it fresh, organic and good. As well as advice on how to use the more exotic stuff available. Nothing will change except that people who need a place to stay not only get a place, but one they choose from a wide variety of choices. Nothing will change except that teachers will become valued, and highly at that. Nothing will change except that We will clean up the planet. Nothing will change except that We will produce Best Solutions rather than the cheapest or most profitable. Nothing will change except that politics will be removed from the process of solving real problems in the most ethical way We can.

You can't find bliss in any of that? You can't find bliss in writing music or a book or climbing a mountain or competing at tennis or hugging your child or any of that and want to haul your tail in to work every day? Or are you a lucky one who is off the "HAVE to go in to work because if I don't my world will fall apart" level? Either by being rich enough or doing your bliss?

If you're rich enough to do your job at your leisure, what I offer takes nothing from you. You can still travel, eat well, live richly. It's just that the rest of us can, too. If your job is your bliss, perhaps I can see why you might lack the focus on others' pain, but I might point out that what I offer takes nothing from you.


That you say "we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now" means you wish to continue the justice system of the world as religious based in some of the ME, and financially/"morally" based as it is in the West, and Corruption based as it is in many third world countries?


As long as any system of justice follows the three Laws, I see no issue. But any money motives will not exist. And "morality" will be moot. Ethics - the three Laws emerging directly from Ethics cover the ground of reasonable morality. (Unreasonable morality is any where large numbers differ - like whether it's ok to be female and wear a bikini in public.)

It will be a process, yes. But I think you can agree that no one will be worse off and vast numbers will have all opportunity to be better off.



No, but I do presume that when there is no competition for basic needs, racism will fade. When people do not feel others are taking from their own piece of a pie - when there are plenty of pies - such archaic behavior will dissipate.


You presume so much that this is all fiction. At least show some studies where there was no racism in a group that had an abundance of resources. Racism is more complicated than money and goods. And don't forget girls, intelligence or lack thereof, hate towards people lesser than you and/or better than you. Many teenagers live abundant lifestyles, wouldn't you agree?


Girls? Why girls? Why not kids? Boys are just as difficult as girls. And again, there will not be any more trouble than we have now. How do you define "lesser" without money? "Better?"

As for today's teens, if we're talking "1st" or "2nd World," I suppose it depends on what you mean by "abundant." If it means life filled with crap they (or somebody) were sold on the Interweb while they desperately try to prepare for a career, making their choices most often dependent on what money is available at both ends of college... I guess.

But I would rather they have the choice to find meaning in the gifts they receive from others, and learning to do well what they love to do.



No. We are talking about greed and money issues at the heart. When people don't feel threatened on these counts, they don't develop the behaviors. Greed has no meaning in abundance. Money motive will vanish. And people will be occupying themselves in their bliss to the point of not caring what others have or do as long as the Laws are not broken.


Not everything boils down to greed. Because you have a skewed perception of the world you feel it is. But life is more complex than you are making it to be.


It would have been nice to have what I responded to here. Ah. Here it is. You said, ":


How do you account for racists, anarchists and general poo disturbers in your brave new world?

Do you assume to say that all racism will be abolished because people found bliss?

We are talking about irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings. Not something that is brought on because there wasn't an abundance of resources.


The behaviors we were examining were: Racists. I covered them above. Anarchists? They are the closest to my ideas. Poo distributors? Why would people do that except for money/power/energy? Cuz they're crazy? There will be no increase in those. In fact, we can expect a drop, as disinfo agents find they have no motivation to spread disinfo.

But you had said we were dealing with some "irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings" and I say that's patently false. Behavior that is hardwired in human is so tenuous as to be almost undetectable. Sexual urges, crying when hungry as a babe... Yeah. But except in the very rare case of insanity, these behaviors have motives rooted in money.


Who decides the laws? Do we keep Sharia law in Muslim states? Do women still get stoned to death, are they finding bliss that way?


That breaks the first Law. I would say that is frowned upon and those who care can get involved and resolve this behavior on the part of the stone-throwers.


There are so many tribal communities in the world that don't give a lick about money. Why don't you study them and try and support your position with the findings....


I have studied many of them, but none have robots to do all the work they don't want to do. Not a one. The closest I can find are the elite (with (wage) slaves in place of robots), and They seem to do just fine - except where competition for money/power/energy is concerned. Then They are a bit contentious. But they go to fetes, travel, study as they wish, do things as they choose to. They are the most like what all of society will be like in abundance.



No I won't need a massive programming. True Human nature will emerge from the prison it is kept in because of money/power/energy. And if you have looked around this site, you will see a great number of indications that TPTB are INDEED manipulating Us for profit (money/power/energy). It is not rational to suggest there is no good evidence.


Of course people are being manipulating, and what you are calling for is the same thing. For everyone to be programed to find bliss.


Huh!?! Programmed? Here, see what gives you the most enjoyment in life. Finding a cure? Trimming waste? Designing a building? Climbing Mt. Everest? Taking a hick with your kid? Writing a computer program? Playing a video game? Creating a video game? What do YOU like to do? Asking those questions is PROGRAMMING!?! No... I don't think so.


What I am saying, is what the government says does not limit people to use their own free will. No matter the manipulation, people are still able to think for themselves if they choose to.


Think, yes. Do? For most - statistically all - of Humanity, We cannot do our days as we wish, richly and with purpose, and at our leisure. We can't spend enough time with the Ones We Love. We must make choices at the store based on money. But actually, what governments do - like building nuclear reactors on/near known fault lines - does rather take some free will away. By my free will I would live with a planet no further irradiated by fallout - but...I don't have that choice. By my free will I would have free energy - but...I don't have that choice.

You make it sound as if we all have equal opportunity at the moment.



Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.







If you are trying to show me I am right about the level of robotics being up to snuff, cool. If you're trying to suggest that there is a society I can examine with all this installed everywhere...you're not going to convince me.




No... My theory (really my analysis) can be sound whether there are examples or not. Now, for you to believe my analysis is correct, YOU may require this. But that is irrelevant to whether I am correct in my analysis.


Your not correct in your analysis because simple comparisons completely void it.


Blanket statement. Be specific. And it doesn't even address whether my statement that my analysis can be sound whether there are examples or not. (In fact, if we waited around for examples of everything, nothing would get done and Humans would not have survived. These are perilous moments and it's rather more like we need to grab the life preserver or drown as opposed to choosing whether to have blueberry jam or raspberry on our toast. I offer a solution, and going for it will place Humanity no worse off and it could be a whole hell of a lot better.



It still applies to everyone. Because it allows for any lifestyle one chooses within the three Laws, anyone may operate as they wish under it, individually and as groups. The only stipulation is that all must be approached with the three Laws in mind. If they want to grow their own food, they may. If they want to order it from the robotic system, they may. It's not so much living "without the influence of [this] new system;" it's that all peaceful ways of coexisting are acceptable.


What happens if a fundamental religious group believes that your tools are the work of evil forces? And said group chooses to use violence and sabotage against the new world....


I suspect they would have few followers in the long run. And I will take my chances against lone gunmen. I mean, all I'm doing is solving problems secularly and with great respect for spirit - for Consciousness. Offering ideas. It will not be me that makes it work, but (statistically) all of Us. Such a group is unlikely to have too many convinced-and-willing-to-go-for-it members (though the possibility exists that something could be made to look like that and used to shut me up...).


How do you enforce your three laws exactly?


Well, you can't "enforce" Law. One chooses to either obey or disobey. What one then has is not the question of enforcement but punishment. When a Law is seen to have been broken, those who would serve as wise - or at least disinterested - parties are selected - and they may choose open jury, or closed, the difference being that open jury is where anyone interested may "vote" on the issue. Closed is 12 Individuals. All who care may weigh in. Though death is never a penalty, imprisonment may be. And pariahhood is earned by those who gain a bad reputation.


Also, how do you plan to take control away of long standing family power groups...Banks, cartels, etc?


That's the easiest question yet. By replacing money with what it represents: energy.
edit on 4/5/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags

edit on 4/5/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags again



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



No motivation to sell snake oil, come to think of it. If it doesn't work, all it is is an embarrassment to hawk.

Anyway, onwards...

This philosophy is built on snake oil. In more than one way.



Nothing except that the woman on her knees washing floors can spend that time eating healthy, wholesome, organic, fresh foods in a place she loves with plenty of time to spend with her kids or visit the grandkids. If she wants to wash a floor - if that's her bliss - she is welcome to do it. Here's the brush and here's the pail of soapy water. Otherwise, a robot will do it.


A robot for 7 billion people? Each person gets a robot?



You can't find bliss in any of that? You can't find bliss in writing music or a book or climbing a mountain or competing at tennis or hugging your child or any of that and want to haul your tail in to work every day? Or are you a lucky one who is off the "HAVE to go in to work because if I don't my world will fall apart" level? Either by being rich enough or doing your bliss?


Who decides the person that has to fix robots is., or who has to be a doctor, or who gets to just piss around all day and play music?

Are people forced into being engineers or does everyone get to be anything they want, what if not enough people want to be engineers?

What about jobs the robots can't do? What about hazardous jobs... Why would anyone risk their lives if everyone else can sit around playing videos games and piano, after finger painting...?



If your job is your bliss, perhaps I can see why you might lack the focus on others' pain, but I might point out that what I offer takes nothing from you.


Everything is free... Why bother working?

Oh, right... bliss. Most teenagers find bliss in ps3 and xBox, hard to get them out of that thinking when they don't have to work.



Think, yes. Do? For most - statistically all - of Humanity, We cannot do our days as we wish, richly and with purpose, and at our leisure. We can't spend enough time with the Ones We Love. We must make choices at the store based on money.


Money is a representation of other things. It is not be all and end all.



If you are trying to show me I am right about the level of robotics being up to snuff, cool. If you're trying to suggest that there is a society I can examine with all this installed everywhere...you're not going to convince me.


You completely ignore facts that are presented to you. You just said and I quote: Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.

You wanted to install robotic factories factories in every country and every continent? Were you planning on eliminating trade routes as well.? Please address what I said above before answering these questions. And address your previous quote.



Blanket statement. Be specific. And it doesn't even address whether my statement that my analysis can be sound whether there are examples or not. (In fact, if we waited around for examples of everything, nothing would get done and Humans would not have survived. These are perilous moments and it's rather more like we need to grab the life preserver or drown as opposed to choosing whether to have blueberry jam or raspberry on our toast. I offer a solution, and going for it will place Humanity no worse off and it could be a whole hell of a lot better.


Posted in another thread to which you did not reply.



Post by YOU
Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.



My reply


Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil)


So in your abundant food supply scheme, are you taking into account staying with GM foods that are highly dependent on petroleum products and produce bigger yields than organic or were you hoping to go back to older crops that produce less yields? Also, did you factor in natural disasters or were you planning to control the weather as well?

Like I said, no basis on reality.



And I will take my chances against lone gunmen. I mean, all I'm doing is solving problems secularly and with great respect for spirit - for Consciousness. Offering ideas. It will not be me that makes it work, but (statistically) all of Us. Such a group is unlikely to have too many convinced-and-willing-to-go-for-it members (though the possibility exists that something could be made to look like that and used to shut me up...).


Trust me, you can't be important enough to "shut up". And all it would take is rationality on your part. Anyone that follows your ideas as if they are based on reality I feel very sorry for. I still maintain that you should market your work as fiction and best of luck if you do. If not, and someone actually believes all this, then you are messing with their heads and are no better than a common day grifter.

Money represents more than energy...


edit on 5-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Explain this one to me too:

Overpopulation





Notice a correlation there? Increased energy production causes population growth... Everything became more abundant back when people starting pumping oil didn't it? More energy, produced more food, I guess people thought they found their bliss....



Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and foraging which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same number of absolute calories as agriculture. This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when compared to agricultural populations.



Hmm? Food supplies limit population growth? Fascinating. What about the world you are creating with unlimited food where everybody eats organic bliss anytime they want?

How much water is there for the abundant world of yours?


Major Water Uses Agriculture Almost 70 per cent of all available freshwater is used for agriculture. Pumping of groundwater by the world's farmers exceeds natural replenishment by at least 160 billion cubic metres a year. It takes an enourmous amount of water to produce crops: one to three cubic metres to yeild just one kilo of rice, and 1,000 tons of water to produce on ton of grain. Land in agricultural use has increased by 12% since the 1960s to about 1.5 billion hectares. Pasture and crops take up 37 percent of the Earth's land area. Current global water withdrawals for irrigation are estimated at about 2,000 to 2,555 cubic kilometres per year.
1










What about desalination??





The growth of desalination plants worldwide is on the increase as global warming and local drought conditions continue. In all 7,500 desalination plants are currently operating worldwide with 60% of these situated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, many desalination plants are adversely affecting the environment.

Exhaust chimneys on many desalination plants belch harmful chemical clouds, and waste brine containing concentrated salt is produced and pumped back into waterways and coastal water. Local marine habitats face pressure with micro-organisms dying as salinity and water temperature increases.Article Source: EzineArticles.com...



In thermal processes, mainly multistage flash (MSF) thermal pollution occurs. These pollutants increase the seawater temperature, salinity, water current and turbidity. They also harm the marine environment, causing fish to migrate while enhancing the presence of algae, nematods and tiny molluscus. Sometimes micro-elements and toxic materials appear in the discharged brine.
1

Explain these all and how they fit into your world. Your idea is just not feasible, nor is it based on reality.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



No motivation to sell snake oil, come to think of it. If it doesn't work, all it is is an embarrassment to hawk.

Anyway, onwards...

This philosophy is built on snake oil. In more than one way.


If you say so, bonch. I see it as a failure to comprehend on your part - and that failure may lead us to a dead end here.



Nothing except that the woman on her knees washing floors can spend that time eating healthy, wholesome, organic, fresh foods in a place she loves with plenty of time to spend with her kids or visit the grandkids. If she wants to wash a floor - if that's her bliss - she is welcome to do it. Here's the brush and here's the pail of soapy water. Otherwise, a robot will do it.


A robot for 7 billion people? Each person gets a robot?


If they want one or three. Or whatever. Within reason. And with time. You should read my book.



You can't find bliss in any of that? You can't find bliss in writing music or a book or climbing a mountain or competing at tennis or hugging your child or any of that and want to haul your tail in to work every day? Or are you a lucky one who is off the "HAVE to go in to work because if I don't my world will fall apart" level? Either by being rich enough or doing your bliss?


Who decides the person that has to fix robots is., or who has to be a doctor, or who gets to just piss around all day and play music?


The person who loves to fix robots (and the robots that fix robots...). No shortage of people who love to fix robots, I think... The people who want to heal their fellow Humans will become doctors. No shortage of those people, either. The individuals whose bliss it is to play music (an art form) will play music all day. As I said, the arts and sciences will burgeon.


Are people forced into being engineers or does everyone get to be anything they want, what if not enough people want to be engineers?


Oh, I think there are plenty of people who love to engineer things. No one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Some people love to solve problems and will study engineering just to solve the problems of engineering if ever there is a need. Need evokes motivation, it turns out, in people whose bliss it is to solve problems.


What about jobs the robots can't do? What about hazardous jobs... Why would anyone risk their lives if everyone else can sit around playing videos games and piano, after finger painting...?


I can't answer "What about jobs the robots can't do?" without some kind of specifics. But I will bet you will find that if no one likes it, a robot can do it, and if a robot can't do it, somebody loves to do it (and plenty of somebodies at that). Hazardous jobs? Robots can do those, I think. And people will do things when needed - as solving problems is bliss to a great many.



If your job is your bliss, perhaps I can see why you might lack the focus on others' pain, but I might point out that what I offer takes nothing from you.


Everything is free... Why bother working?


Well, prestige for one. Doing what you love to do, for another. Meeting needs, for a third. Solving problems, as a fourth. Caring for others, fifth. For a sense of self worth, sixth... What motivates anyone to work on their hobbies? Same reasons.


Oh, right... bliss. Most teenagers find bliss in ps3 and xBox, hard to get them out of that thinking when they don't have to work.


And why would one want to pull them out of that if there is no need? Also, teens in abundance are already deep into their bliss - rather than still stuffed into boxes of "learning" trying to choose a career. The pressures to materialism abate - no profit motive makes "selling" something pointless - and focus on bliss and betterment is what is taught - not what can make someone the most money.


Think, yes. Do? For most - statistically all - of Humanity, We cannot do our days as we wish, richly and with purpose, and at our leisure. We can't spend enough time with the Ones We Love. We must make choices at the store based on money.

Money is a representation of other things. It is not be all and end all.

In the epiphenomena, money may seem to represent other things, but at the foundation, it is used to lubricate the actual resources it affects. It also lubricates society - leaving patches where leisure is afforded and patches where it is not. Strife builds more from that lack of lubricant or where lubricant is contested. Be all and end all? No. But foundational? Yes indeed.



If you are trying to show me I am right about the level of robotics being up to snuff, cool. If you're trying to suggest that there is a society I can examine with all this installed everywhere...you're not going to convince me.


You completely ignore facts that are presented to you. You just said and I quote: Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.

You wanted to install robotic factories factories in every country and every continent? Were you planning on eliminating trade routes as well.? Please address what I said above before answering these questions. And address your previous quote.


It won't be necessary to "install robotic factories ... in every country and every continent" no more than it was necessary to install car factories in the same way. I say, again, that though we have the level of robotics and the internet coverage and the free energy, they are not yet combined in the proper configuration - and never have been - without money and with self-directed governance on the web. You keep asking me to "show you" or "study" myself a society with all these features in place. I say to you I cannot because we never before (relatively speaking - I'm not comparing Now to last night) had all these things to work with.

Trade routes will do their own adjusting - as the flow of goods requires - but understand, the routes will emerge based on supply and demand and not profit.

I hope I addressed what you said above and all...



Blanket statement. Be specific. And it doesn't even address whether my statement that my analysis can be sound whether there are examples or not. (In fact, if we waited around for examples of everything, nothing would get done and Humans would not have survived. These are perilous moments and it's rather more like we need to grab the life preserver or drown as opposed to choosing whether to have blueberry jam or raspberry on our toast. I offer a solution, and going for it will place Humanity no worse off and it could be a whole hell of a lot better.


Posted in another thread to which you did not reply.


Post by YOU
Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.



My reply


Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil)


So in your abundant food supply scheme, are you taking into account staying with GM foods that are highly dependent on petroleum products and produce bigger yields than organic or were you hoping to go back to older crops that produce less yields? Also, did you factor in natural disasters or were you planning to control the weather as well?


You are aware that organic methods of production are showing on par yields with higher nutrition, don't you? You do know GM crops are causing rodents and cattle to become ill - IF they will eat it at all? You do know what you say above is propaganda that Monsanto would be proud of - if it isn't something they're proud of.
They appropriated the name "green" and tried to make it sound as if these deadly, modified, petrochemically "fertilized" fields were giving us any more than we could have had if we had gone organic.

But the data are in and organic farms are producing healthier plants with more nutrition at the same rate as these death fields. And there are animals refusing to eat the GMO. Maybe there's a clue?


Like I said, no basis on reality.


Given that you approach the issue as if organic methods are not up to par with "conventional" monoresource methods, I suspect it is you who has less of a grip on reality than I.



And I will take my chances against lone gunmen. I mean, all I'm doing is solving problems secularly and with great respect for spirit - for Consciousness. Offering ideas. It will not be me that makes it work, but (statistically) all of Us. Such a group is unlikely to have too many convinced-and-willing-to-go-for-it members (though the possibility exists that something could be made to look like that and used to shut me up...).


Trust me, you can't be important enough to "shut up". And all it would take is rationality on your part. Anyone that follows your ideas as if they are based on reality I feel very sorry for. I still maintain that you should market your work as fiction and best of luck if you do. If not, and someone actually believes all this, then you are messing with their heads and are no better than a common day grifter.


Whoa. There's some fightin' words. But I have no desire to fight. I have shown where you have erred, and shown how it can work. If you still insist on using adhoms instead of reason, there is little more to say. Maybe I should tell you you're right just to end this.


Money represents more than energy...


I have shown how money as the main phenomenon is just that. You are too bogged down with the trees (epiphenomena) to see the forest.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Where is most of that population growth? In the poor sectors. Not in the numbers of the elite and middle class (what's left of them). They have few children. The poor of the world are the ones having children. Place all in positions where they can live richly and they will spend less time using sex as a security blanket or whatever. Populations will stabilize and maybe drop a bit. (Also, this is well demonstrated in the US, where a higher percentage were middle class for a long while - the population is stable. Has NOT kept up with the population in poorer countries in the least.)

Though we saw abundance grow for some, it is slipping away now. Statistically all of us are in poverty or close to it. You are seeming to equate population growth with abundance rather than increased medical tech.

Are you aware of Dean Kamen's water purifier? Yes, the same Dean Kamen who invented the Segway. If it had free energy it could purify any water it had to work with anywhere. There's a water solution.
edit on 4/6/2011 by Amaterasu because: punctuation



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


You really don't address the issues because you do not research the problems. This is like saying "if there was magic, than the world would be perfect".

And any legitimate concerns raised to you is answered with proverbial magic. The water one I just can't believe that you would say a filter is going to solve the world's problems. ALL WATER PROBLEMS THAT IS. (Future and present)

You never talked about the oil use in your platform, but robots can do everyone's job?.... When was the last time you met a robotic roughneck?

Don't bother replying because I'm tired of the nonsense responses. You have made no attempt to research actual issues and offer actual solutions. This thing is based off fantasy and it's simple as that.

And the final reason it wouldn't work, is because I (and people like myself) wouldn't let it. Your idea creeps me out. I like hierarchy, so does everyone else. That is why humans always develop hierarchies, doesn't matter how abundant or scarce anything is...

It's ingrained into us. So are all the other things that make this a pointless argument.

Fiction or do some research, good luck with that.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


You really don't address the issues because you do not research the problems. This is like saying "if there was magic, than the world would be perfect".

And any legitimate concerns raised to you is answered with proverbial magic. The water one I just can't believe that you would say a filter is going to solve the world's problems. ALL WATER PROBLEMS THAT IS. (Future and present)

You never talked about the oil use in your platform, but robots can do everyone's job?.... When was the last time you met a robotic roughneck?

Don't bother replying because I'm tired of the nonsense responses. You have made no attempt to research actual issues and offer actual solutions. This thing is based off fantasy and it's simple as that.

And the final reason it wouldn't work, is because I (and people like myself) wouldn't let it. Your idea creeps me out. I like hierarchy, so does everyone else. That is why humans always develop hierarchies, doesn't matter how abundant or scarce anything is...

It's ingrained into us. So are all the other things that make this a pointless argument.

Fiction or do some research, good luck with that.


I guess 50 years of study and research is way too little. Ok. Whatever, boncho. You're right.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





I guess 50 years of study and research is way too little. Ok. Whatever, boncho. You're right.


Citations? References? Projections? Statistical analysis? Mathematical models? Anything?....

Please.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





I guess 50 years of study and research is way too little. Ok. Whatever, boncho. You're right.


Citations? References? Projections? Statistical analysis? Mathematical models? Anything?....

Please.


IQ of 165? Drive to understand? Analysis based on deep study? New ideas?

Please.

(And I do source where I have source and not merely my analysis - those have been ignored... Meh. Whatever, boncho. You're right.)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join